Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Design and experiment of a sea-air heterogeneous unmanned collaborative

system for rapid inspection tasks at sea
Tian Ennong a, Li Ye a, b, *, Ma Teng a, Liao Yulei a, b, Li Yueming a, b, Cao Jian a
a
Science and Technology on Underwater Vehicle Laboratory, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China
b
Sanya Nanhai Innovation and Development Base of Harbin Engineering University, Sanya, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The incorporation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) into sea surface inspection and complex water naviga­
Heterogeneous unmanned system tion tasks performed by Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) enhances the operational capabilities and task effi­
UAV ciency of heterogeneous systems. The autonomous docking of USV by UAV at sea serves as a foundational and
USV
vital element for facilitating collaborative tasks among unmanned systems. Faced with the problem that the UAV
Autonomous landing
Task allocation
visual positioning USV deck is susceptible to interference from maritime meteorological conditions and the
Maritime inspection positioning accuracy of GPS is poor, this paper introduces the UWB positioning system and analyzes and solves
the error disturbance term of its positioning array under the influence of sea sway for the first time. At the same
time, due to the error problem caused by the small baseline of UWB installed on the deck, an adaptive Kalman
filter that combines GPS speed information and UWB positioning data is proposed to reduce error. In light of the
destabilizing effects resulting from the swaying of the USV deck during UAV docking, this study proposes a USV
roll and pitch stability control strategy that incorporates environmental wind and wave data. Additionally, a UAV
docking controller utilizing a fuzzy PID approach has been developed to facilitate secure and stable UAV takeoff
and docking operations at sea. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm was verified through sea docking
experiments under various working conditions. Finally, in the context of the multi-target maritime inspection
mission of heterogeneous unmanned systems, an exploratory improved VRP algorithm is proposed, allowing
UAVs to quickly and efficiently complete sea surface inspection operations.The feasibility and operational effi­
ciency of the cooperative mission system are tested through joint simulation using Simulink and UE4 in a high-
fidelity environment. This provides a reference solution for future applications of heterogeneous unmanned
systems in real maritime environments.

Introduction
The development of global economic activity and maritime trade has
brought about increased attention to maritime transport safety and
marine environmental pollution, leading to a necessity for regular in­
spections of relevant sea areas. Due to its advantages in terms of large
payload, long range, high autonomy, unrestricted navigation and
communication signals, and low cost, USV are widely employed for
marine scientific research. Nonetheless, factors such as the curvature of
the earth, the viewing angle of onboard sensor installations, and
detection blind zones result in a weaker USV perception of sea surface
inspection compared to UAV flying in the air. UAV can fly hundreds of
meters above the sea surface, carry high-definition cameras and other
sensors that can perceive the surrounding sea area without obstacles,
and have superior visibility. UAV can also complete patrol tasks on the
sea surface more efficiently than USV, which require landing for
charging due to their limited payload and endurance. However, USV can
provide UAV with flight decks and charging devices for takeoff and
landing. Therefore, using heterogeneous unmanned systems composed
of UAV and USV can complement each other and efficiently complete
various tasks at sea, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Maritime heterogeneous unmanned systems, such as AUV, USV, and
UAV, can be combined to leverage the distinctive advantages of each
platform and create a more potent and effective collaborative system
capable of completing complex tasks. For instance, a hydrological
environment monitoring system can be developed by combining UAV
and USV and utilizing their individual strengths. In reference to Rangel
et al. (2019), a surface heterogeneous unmanned system made up of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liye@hrbeu.edu.cn (L. Ye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2023.103856
Received 25 July 2023; Received in revised form 20 November 2023; Accepted 20 December 2023
Available online 1 January 2024
0141-1187/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Ennong et al.
UAV and USV was employed in Brazilian dams to collect hydrological
information, where UAV tracked and controlled USV in a cooperative
effort.
In comparison to USV, UAV possess a broader field of view and
stronger perception capabilities of the sea surface, making them well-
suited for sea-based search and rescue missions. After locating in­
dividuals using UAV, USV can be dispatched to approach and execute
rescue missions for those people who have fallen into the water. Prior
research, such as Ramírez et al. (2011, Xiao et al. (2017) (Xiao et al.,
2017, September)), and Zhang et al.(2016), has explored UAV and USV
coordination systems for rescues following shipwrecks, which has led to
improved response times and accuracy. Wang et al. (2023) proposes a
maritime search and rescue system consisting of UAV and USV that
utilizes reinforcement learning to process and extract features from UAV
images captured at sea. Additionally, the reinforcement learning algo­
rithm is implemented to learn the control strategy for USV, and finally, a
simulation is presented. Meanwhile, in Dufek et al. (2016), a drone’s
vision sensor was used to estimate the location of an individual in the
water and assist the USV during the rescue mission.
Many coastal cities have developed offshore wind farms in response
to increasing urban energy consumption and the demand for clean en­
ergy. It is imperative to perform regular inspections on wind turbines
located in these offshore wind farms. To this end, in Collins et al. (2017),
an autonomous monitoring system for offshore wind farms is proposed,
which utilizes both UAV and USV. The USV navigates throughout the
wind farm while the carried sensors on the UAV detect any damage to
the offshore wind turbine blades. Upon completion of the mission, the
UAV autonomously returns to the USV for recharging.
The use of a heterogeneous unmanned cooperative system at sea,
with its extensive range of perception and mission versatility, holds
great promise for meeting the military battlefield requirements of the
future. As an example, Wu, Y et al.(2020) proposes an underwater
cooperative search and tracking system involving UAV, USV, and AUV.
Simulation experiments have been conducted to test this system. Wu, Y
et al.(2019) describes how UAV and AUV have been utilized to perform
coordinated search and strike missions against underwater targets. In
Pastore et al.(2017), a demonstration case is presented, illustrating how
the maritime heterogeneous unmanned coordination system can be
applied in future battlefields.
USV may encounter difficulties in navigating through complex and
unfamiliar water, such as wetlands, island groups, rainforests, or polar
Fig. 1. Maritime-Aerial Heterogeneous Unmanned System Conducting Complex Missions at Sea.
2
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
ice floes. These challenges can arise from a lack of available regional
maps, changes in water topography brought about by varying flood
levels, and the obstructed GNSS signals caused by the dense jungle in
rainforest and wetland areas. When faced with these challenges, the
high-altitude vision provided by UAV can aid the USV by extracting the
water edge of the unfamiliar environment and plotting a globally
optimal path for the USV, as outlined in Huang et al. (2023). Addi­
tionally, USV have been shown to be valuable in assisting UGV in
navigating unfamiliar environments, as illustrated in Garzón et al.
(2013) and Qin et al. (2019).
The coordinated operations of heterogeneous unmanned systems in
both sea and air environments greatly enhance offshore operational
efficiency. The collaboration between UAV and USV holds vast potential
for development. However, since the offshore climate is harsh and ever-
changing, UAV and USV are prone to movement interference. If effective
solutions to the docking and recovery issues that arise between these
systems cannot be implemented, this technology might not be applicable
to actual marine engineering scenarios.
The current challenge with coordinated aircraft and boat landings is
twofold. Firstly, the accurate relative positioning of the two is difficult
due to complex meteorological conditions and varying sea states. Vision
sensors alone can be affected by factors like sea surface climatic con­
ditions, reflections, and occlusion, which can lead to recognition failures
or inaccuracies. Additionally, the positioning error of civilian GNSS is
high (CEP=2 m), and the data output frequency is low (10 Hz). Sec­
ondly, the maritime environment is complex, and under the super­
position of wind and waves, the USV undergoes significant oscillation
responses, which increases the uncertainty of the UAV landing process.
If there is a deviation in the relative landing position, the UAV is at risk
of falling into the sea.
In this research field, most researchers utilize UAV-mounted visual
cameras and high-performance image processors to identify and extract
the position of a USV’s deck. Extensive simulations and surface experi­
ments have been conducted in previous studies Wang et al.(2022), Xu
et al.(2020) and Fan et al.(2016). However, wind and wave-induced
shaking of USVs can lead to the loss of UAV tracking, presenting a sig­
nificant challenge. To mitigate this issue, the paper proposes the use of a
Kalman filter to estimate the USV’s position even after losing its features
(Polvara et al.2018).
Equipping UAV exclusively with high-resolution cameras and so­
phisticated vision processors for autonomous landing missions would
T. Ennong et al.
severely influence their energy consumption and payload. Furthermore,
relying on these devices would deplete the UAV’s computing power.
Santos et al.(2019) proposes a passive identification method for UAV to
land autonomously on the flight deck of a destroyer’s stern. The de­
signers compared the UAV autonomous identification flight deck with
destroyer auxiliary identification schemes and ultimately selected the
latter, which significantly reduced the load, energy consumption, and
computing power of UAV. Individual landing tasks can also be accom­
plished through onboard sensors, reducing the design requirements for
lightweight and integrated UAV. However, recognition success rates
may be affected under poor vision conditions, such as during low-light
or at sea, because of the pure vision scheme. Furthermore, when USV
is in motion, the UAV may experience difficulty obtaining high
frame-rate recognition results due to speed limitations in visual pro­
cessing. This limitation may affect the docking control of both systems,
making it necessary to use a high-frequency, high-precision, and
high-reliability relative positioning method.
Autonomous landing of UAV on moving ground targets, such as
unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), can be challenging due to the
landing deck’s dynamic movement. This movement requires the UAV to
predict and estimate the carrier’s movement speed and direction
changes. Similarly, autonomous landing on USV is even more compli­
cated because of the USV’s differing oscillation responses in all six de­
grees of freedom when disturbed by waves or wind. Typically,
researchers address this problem in two ways.
The first is to design a motion compensation device between the
flight deck and the USV to achieve the smoothness of the flight deck.
Zhang et al.(2020) describes the use of a six-degree-of-freedom motion
mechanism to keep the USV deck horizontal. Secondly, for slender hulls,
longitudinal stability is preferred over transverse stability when sailing
on the surface. However, transverse stability can interfere with flight
deck landings. Therefore, Shao et al.(2019) suggests employing a
buoyancy adjustment mechanism to maintain the USV’s lateral center of
gravity and ensure a stable attitude during landing. Weaver et al.(2013)
outlines the design of a dynamically positioned USV. When such a USV
can navigate the surface while maintaining stability and a fixed position,
it significantly improves the success rate of UAV landing on the USV.
The second is the landing deck and the USV are solidly connected,
and UAV needs to make a very short-term forecast of the deck of USV to
obtain the attitude position change law of USV, so as to assist docking
control. Li et al.(2022) proposes a three-layer prediction network of
Bi-LSTM based on previous research on USV position prediction esti­
mation. By inputting the current Euler Angle of the USV and the speed
relative to the hull coordinate system, the network predicts the Euler
angle estimate of USV at the next moment, providing useful data for the
docking controller. Additionally, Abujoub et al.(2018) and Riola et al.
(2011) employ signal prediction technology to estimate the attitude of
the USV, determine a safe landing time for the UAV, and then sends
control commands to the UAV. Finally, simulation experiments are
performed.
In conclusion, UAV face two significant challenges in autonomously
landing on USV:
1. Difficulty in obtaining accurate relative positions at sea. The
current research on the recovery of UAV at sea predominantly relies
on UAV-based camera recognition of deck markers on the USV.
However, it is worth noting that the majority of these studies have
been limited to simulated or controlled calm water environments,
failing to account for the challenges associated with visual posi­
tioning in the presence of adverse weather conditions such as rain,
fog, and variable lighting. Moreover, this method imposes a burden
on the UAV’s payload capacity, power resources, and processing
capabilities.
2. USV swaying interferes with positioning data and UAV docking.
USV demonstrate six degrees of freedom swaying motion during sea
navigation. However, there has been a lack of scholarly research on
3
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
analyzing and resolving errors related to UWB positioning arrays
affected by USV swaying. Moreover, the lateral and longitudinal
swaying of USVs can affect the stability of UAV docking. Excessive
deviation in the angles of the two vehicles poses a risk of collision
and capsizing. If a deck motion compensation device is introduced
indiscriminately, it may amplify the swaying of small-displacement
USVs due to the device’s reaction force. This can negatively impact
the stability control of the USV and significantly raise system costs.
Considering the technical challenges encountered by UAVs during
autonomous landing on USVs and the task allocation methods for
collaborative missions, this paper has carried out the following inno­
vative work:
1. This study provides a quantitative analysis of the impact of posi­
tioning errors from UWB base stations on USV hulls affected by sea
wind and waves for the first time and proposes solutions. Addition­
ally, this study tackles the issue of substantial errors that arise when
the UAV is located far away from the USV deck due to the limited
installation baseline of UWB. To alleviate this problem, the state
estimation incorporates GPS speed information, effectively
improving the accuracy and stability of the relative position data
throughout the UAV docking process.
2. A novel "surfing" roll and pitch stability control method for USV is
introduced. The method involves the USV utilizing weather station
data to determine the wind and wave direction in its surroundings.
Subsequently, it adjusts its heading and speed to synchronize with
the environmental waves, thereby decreasing the encounter period
between the USV and the waves. This adjustment effectively mini­
mizes the rolling and pitching response of the USV, consequently
facilitating the smooth landing of the UAV. Simultaneously, the UAV
evaluates its relative speed, position, and heading deviation in
relation to the USV, and dynamically adjusts the expected control
inputs and motion parameters using a fuzzy working condition table.
Multiple autonomous landing experiments at sea have demonstrated
the UAV’s high landing accuracy and stability during the docking
phase.
3. A method for expeditious sea surface inspection by the USV-UAV
collaborative mission system is proposed. Furthermore, a collabo­
rative mission simulation system, developed using Simulink and
UE4, is established for verification, which provides a reference for
maritime patrol operations of heterogeneous sea and air unmanned
systems.
2. Design of heterogeneous unmanned systems
2.1. Design of USV and UAV
This study employs a self-developed ZY-USV, and its physical pro­
totype is depicted in Fig. 2. With dimensions of 5.5m in length, 2.4m in
width, and a draft of 0.3m, the USV has a displacement of 750kg and is
propelled by two electric thrusters, enabling it to reach a maximum
speed of 8kn. Course changes are performed through two thruster dif­
ferentials or forward and reverse rotation, allowing for in-situ steering
and providing exceptional maneuverability.
The energy system of the USV employs a gasoline-electric hybrid
scheme that draws design inspiration from new energy vehicles. This
scheme combines the advantage of the simple drive and fast response of
electric thrusters with the high energy density of gasoline. The power
system of the USV is designed to segregate between high-voltage and
low-voltage batteries. High-voltage batteries power the electric thrusters
while low-voltage batteries power the USV’s navigation computers,
embedded controllers, telemetry radios, camera pods, and other sensors.
The objective is to avoid electromagnetic interference on the navigation
calculator and sensor from the thruster work, given that the working
voltage of high-power electric thrusters is generally high whereas the
T. Ennong et al.
Fig. 2. Prototype and Composition of ZY-USV.
working voltage of the navigation computer and the inertial guide
sensor is low. Using a separate power supply scheme can greatly reduce
the use of the DC step-down module, cut costs, and decrease the heat loss
of the power module.
The high-voltage battery in the USV uses an 80V200AH ternary
lithium battery, while the low-voltage battery employs a 24v120AH
ternary lithium battery. The USV adopts the gasoline range extender
system, which is currently a mature technology in the field of new en­
ergy vehicles. Essentially, the range extender is a gasoline generator that
connects to the high-voltage battery of the USV. It automatically detects
the high-voltage battery level, and when its power falls below the set
value, the range extender charges the high-voltage battery pack auto­
matically. USV’s high-voltage and low-voltage battery packs are con­
nected to the high-power charging module that is controlled by the
USV’s Battery Management System (BMS). When the BMS detects that
the low-voltage battery pack has fallen below the set value, the charging
module will be activated, causing the high-voltage battery pack to
commence charging the low-voltage battery pack. The energy system’s
design significantly enhances the USV’s cruising range, which can be
estimated from the related test parameters illustrated in Table 1.
The stern of the USV serves as a takeoff and landing platform for
UAV. In order to reduce costs, no motion compensation mechanism has
Table 1
Estimation of Endurance Range for USV
Fuel tank capacity 12L
Maximum power generation 8kw
The actual operating time of the range extender 5h
Generate electrical energy 40kwh
Transfer efficiency such as charging heat loss 85 %
The high-voltage battery actually gets the power 34kwh
The high-voltage battery comes with electric energy 14kwh
Operating power of the thruster at a maximum speed of 8kn 4.2kw
Operating time at maximum speed 11.43h
Maximum range 169km
4
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
been installed; instead, the UAV deck is connected directly to the USV.
UWB positioning base stations are placed around the deck to determine
the location of the UAV, which are equipped with UWB tags. UWB sig­
nals experience energy attenuation when penetrating obstacles, with
wood and plastic materials having minimal impact on the positioning
accuracy of UWB, whereas metal materials can have a significant impact
on the positioning accuracy of UWB. Therefore, to ensure positioning
accuracy, wooden boards serve as the landing deck for UAV.
The USV’s navigation computer uses an industrial computer that
runs Win10 system. It comes equipped with electronic maps and path
planners that allow it to navigate according to the planned path mapped
out by the host computer. The embedded main control board utilizes the
main controller of the STM32F407 core. It is responsible for reading
various sensors, deploying motion control algorithms, driving electric
thrusters, monitoring the voltage and current of both battery sets, and
controlling the charging relay of low-voltage batteries. Additionally, the
USV boasts a GNSS integrated navigation system, high-definition cam­
era, action camera, wireless image transmission, wireless network radio,
and a weather station sensor. These features provide comprehensive
environmental and navigation data for the USV, supporting perception,
planning, control, and other related tasks.
For this study, we utilized an open-source LX-UAV that integrates
attitude information from IMU and magnetic compass fusion with GPS
data for latitude and longitude information, along with barometer and
laser sensor readings for altitude and relative ground altitude informa­
tion. This combination allows us to obtain a more accurate pose esti­
mation when operating the UAV in open areas. However, due to the
limited accuracy and update frequency of the GPS which has a CEP of
2m and an update frequency of 10Hz, it is unable to support the docking
task between the UAV and USV. To improve this, we installed UWB
positioning tags on the UAV to provide fast and reliable relative position
information for the docking controller. The UWB tags offer a horizontal
positioning accuracy of 10cm and an update frequency of up to 200Hz.
The vertical positioning accuracy of the UWB is limited, being only
approximately 30 cm, and is contingent on the vertical distance of the
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

UWB tag relative to the plane of the base station and the base station
layout range. As such, the farther the tag is situated from the plane of the
base station, the more precise its vertical accuracy. Thus, during the
UAV’s vertical landing on the USV, its own barometer and laser sensor
are combined to navigate the altitude. However, since the UAV is tasked
with autonomously taking off and landing on the water surface, there is
a high degree of uncertainty during these stages of the experiment. To
prevent any potential damage to the UAV that could occur from it falling
into the water, an EVA buoyancy bar was installed beneath the UAV (see
Fig. 3), allowing for the adjustment of its heavy-floating position so that
it remains afloat in water. Furthermore, the application of waterproof
coating to the UAV’s circuit board helps protect the electronics from
seawater corrosion.
2.2. Design of an Adaptive Position Filter Considering Wind and Wave
Interference on the Hull
As the flight deck area of the USV is limited, achieving high precision
control when docking the UAV with the USV requires precise mea­
surement of relative position. However, civilian GPS has low accuracy, a
low data output frequency, and is unsuitable for accurately tracking the
relative motion of the two docking carriers. While RTK technology offers
centimeter-level positioning accuracy between the UAV and USV, it is
primarily targeted for offshore area, and therefore, there are no RTK
positioning base stations available in this distant sea area applications.
Consequently, we opted for a hybrid GPS and UWB positioning
approach in which GPS provides preliminary guidance for the UAV’s
homing process. Once the UAV and USV are in close proximity, the
UWB’s positioning data takes over as the main source of information,
with GPS speed information integrated to estimate the UAV’s position.
During this process, we consider the impact of wind and waves on the
UWB’s positioning base station and complete our filter design before
testing its efficacy.
Ultra-Wideband (UWB) is a carrier-free communication technology
that transmits information using narrow pulses of non-sinusoidal waves
lasting from nanoseconds to microseconds. UWB boasts high time res­
olution, excellent penetration properties, low power consumption, good
anti-multipath capabilities, and high security, among other benefits. As
a result, UWB is widely employed in communication and positioning
applications, particularly in areas without coverage from GNSS signals
like GPS, BDS, Glonass, or Galileo. UWB positioning systems rely on
several measurement methods, including Received Signal Strength
(RSS), Angle of Arrival (AOA), Time of Arrival (TOA), and Time Dif­
ference of Arrival (TDOA) (Sahinoglu et al.2008) (Soganci et al.2011).
The Received Signal Strength (RSS) is calculated based on the
strength of the signal received by a base station from the mobile station.
The distance between the base station and the mobile station can then be
estimated using an attenuation model (Gigl et al.2007). The Angle of
Arrival (AOA) method estimates the position of the target by measuring
the angle between the unknown point and reference point through
triangulation. The position of the target is determined based on the
arrival angle of signals received by multiple base stations (Xu et al.,
2015). Alternatively, the Time of Arrival (TOA) method measures the
time between the mobile station’s signal arrival at the base station and
multiplication of that time with the speed of light to calculate the dis­
tance. This method necessitates time synchronization between the base
and mobile stations (Shen et al.2010). On the other hand, the Time
Difference of Arrival (TDOA) method calculates the time difference
between the mobile station signal’s arrival at different base stations and
converts it into distance information. This method requires time syn­
chronization between the base stations only (Kaushik et al., 2011).
This paper employs the Time of Arrival (TOA) Ultra-Wideband
(UWB) positioning method, as depicted in Fig. 4. The method is uti­
lized on the landing deck of a USV, using four base station nodes named
ANCHOR, abbreviated as {A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 }. The UAV is equipped with a
tag node named Taguav . Through measuring TOA of the four anchors on
the USV deck from Taguav and denoting it as {τi ,i = 1,2,3,4}, the distance
between the TAG and each anchor is estimated by multiplying it with the
speed of light constant c, as per formula (1).
ρi = cτi , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (1)
Using multiple distances and parameters, several sets of spherical
equations can be generated. The relative coordinate position of TAG
with respect to ANCHOR is then calculated iteratively using numerical
methods. The specific steps are outlined below:
USV’s four ANCHORs and the UAV’s coordinate values in the UWB
positioning coordinate system {Ow Xw Yw Zw } are respectively represented
as {psi = [xsi , ysi , zsi ]T , i = 1, 2, 3, 4} and pW = [x, y, z]T . The psi are known,
and their values come from the calibrated relative coordinates after the
ANCHORs installation is completed.
This information can be used to derive a system of spherical equa­
tions, such as formula (2).
⎧ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ρ 1 = (x − xs1 )2 + (y − ys1 )2 + (z − zs1 )2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ρ2 = (x − xs2 )2 + (y − ys2 )2 + (z − zs2 )2
⎨
(2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪ 2 2 2
⎪
⎪ ρ 3 = (x − x s3 ) + (y − y s3 ) + (z − z s3 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪
⎩ ρ4 = (x − xs4 )2 + (y − ys4 )2 + (z − zs4 )2

By simplifying and organizing, the following forms can be obtained:

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
xs1 − xs2 ys1 − ys2 zs1 − zs2 x
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢
2⎣ xs1 − xs3 ys1 − ys3 zs1 − zs3 ⎦⎣ y ⎥
⎥ ⎢
⎦
xs1 − xs4 ys1 − ys4 zs1 − zs4 z
⎡ ⎤ (3)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
⎢ ρ2 − ρ1 + xs1 − xs2 + ys1 − ys2 + zs1 − zs2 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
=⎢ 2 2 2 2 2 2
⎢ ρ3 − ρ1 + xs1 − xs3 + ys1 − ys3 + zs1 − zs3 ⎥
2 ⎥

⎣ 2 ⎦
ρ4 − ρ21 + x2s1 − x2s4 + y2s1 − y2s4 + z2s1 − z2s4

Given that we have knowledge of the relative coordinates of the four

ANCHORs and ρi , it is possible to calculate the pW of the UAV in the
{Ow Xw Yw Zw }. Practical measurements of the distance ρi between the
TAG and each ANCHOR are susceptible to errors arising from occlusions
and hardware clock inaccuracies. These sources of interference prevent
the four spherical equations in formula (2) from intersecting at a single
Fig. 3. Equipped with Buoyancy Rods and Waterproof Treatment.

5
T. Ennong et al.
Fig. 4. Principles and Coordinate System of UWB Positioning.
point, resulting in the formation of a closest overlapping region. When
the TAG is positioned within the square area delimited by the four
ANCHORs, its closest overlapping region can be precisely and unam­
biguously identified. However, when the TAG is located beyond this
square area, especially at greater distances, its overlapping region tends
to diverge, causing localization to fail and making it impossible to
determine its position coordinates.
Due to the placement of the four ANCHORs at the four corners of the
USV flight deck, optimal localization performance for the TAG is ach­
ieved when the UAV approaches the airspace directly above the deck.
However, as the distance between the UAV and the flight deck increases,
the localization accuracy diminishes, and this may result in instances of
localization failure.
To quantify the transmission law of measurement errors of UWB
under this antenna array configuration, high-precision laser range­
finders were used as the ground truth to measure the positioning accu­
racy of UAVs carrying TAG at different distances from the USV flight
deck. The process and results are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that,
based on the UWB base station configuration shown in Fig. 4, the
positioning accuracy decreases with increasing distance. After a distance
of 10m, the positioning error increases significantly, while the posi­
tioning accuracy is relatively high when the distance is within 7.171m.
Additionally, the standard deviation of UWB positioning error increases
Fig. 5. Data Collection Process of Measurement Errors for UWB and Variation Pattern of Errors with Increasing Distance.
6
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
with distance. Fitting the curve of positioning error and its distribution
with distance using a polynomial function yields formulas (4) and (5).
{
0, x ∈ [0, 7.171]
Dx (x) = (4)
3.525lnx − 6.296, x ∈ (7.171, 25]
{
0.1, x ∈ [0, 7.171]
Rx (x) = (5)
0.153lnx − 0.17, x ∈ (7.171, 25]
During practical use, when the UAV is more than 25 meters away
from the flight deck, the mean UWB positioning error using this antenna
array configuration is approximately 5 meters. If the controller solely
relies on UWB for positioning, the UAV will experience significant
oscillation during the docking process with the USV, which can impede
stable docking. To address this issue, integrating and estimating data
from other position sensors is necessary to fuse with unstable UWB data.
The output frequency of GPS data is limited to only 10 Hz, which makes
it difficult for the position data of the UAV traveling at high speed to
assist in real-time fusion of UWB positioning information. However,
during the UAV’s docking process with the USV, the duration of the
acceleration chase, constant speed approach, and deceleration landing
stages vary based on the docking controller design. Specifically, the
duration of the UAV’s constant speed approach is relatively long and
includes a portion where the distance between the two vehicles ranges
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

from 7-25m. During this phase, the UAV approaches the USV at a steady ̂ − + Kk+1 (Zk+1 − HXk+1 − Dk )
̂ k+1 = X
X (15)
speed, and GPS outputs high-precision velocity values at its maximum k+1

frequency of 10 Hz, which meet the filtering requirement for the esti­
Pk+1 = (I − Kk+1 H)P−k+1 (16)
mation of the UAV state. Therefore, an adaptive Kalman filter, which
fuses UWB positioning and GPS velocity information, is proposed. By reading the relevant state information of the UAV’s UWB, GPS,
UWB positioning system is utilized during the landing process of the and accelerometer, the state vector is formed and iterated from formulas
UAV to determine the relative position data with respect to the USV. (12) through (16). At the same time, the sensor measurement noise Rx
Initially, the state transition equation for the UAV is created. and measurement bias Dk are adaptively adjusted according to the dis­
tance between the UAV and the USV positioning base station, thus
Xk+1 = AXk + BUk + Wk (6)
completing the fusion estimation of the position and velocity informa­
In which, k is the iteration number of the filter, Xk is the state variable tion of the UAV. During the floating stage of the USV at sea, the esti­
of the filter, A is the system’s state transition matrix, B is the system’s mated state quantities output by the filter are used for the docking
control matrix, Uk is the control vector, which in this paper represents control of the UAV. The measurement values of the sensors and filter
the acceleration in the Carrier Coordinate System (CCS) of the UAV, and output results are recorded as shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that during
Wk is the state noise of the system. Wk ∼ N(0, Q), where Q is the state the return phase, the UAV velocity value measured by GPS changes
noise matrix defined as follows: uniformly and steadily. The fused position estimation is then performed
⎡ ⎤ by combining this with the UWB position value. Furthermore, adaptive
wxk 0 0 0 adjustment of measurement noise R and bias term Dk is carried out in the
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ 0 wxk˙
⎥
⎥ interval with large UWB positioning errors to ensure the accuracy and
0 0
⎢ ⎥ stability of filter data.
Q=⎢ ⎥ (7)
⎢
⎢ 0 0 w yk 0
⎥
⎥ Due to the fact that the UWB positioning base station is rigidly
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ connected to the USV, the USV experiences periodic oscillatory motion
0 0 0 wyk˙ with six degrees of freedom while navigating at sea under the influence
of waves and wind. This will cause interference with the UWB posi­
Then (4) can be written as (6). tioning coordinates pW obtained by the UAV, thus requiring a specific
⎡ /
⎤ analysis of this issue.
T02 2 ⎡ ⎤
⎡
xk+1
⎤
1
⎡
T0 0 0
⎤⎡
xk
⎤ 0 ⎥ wxk USV uses the NED coordinate system and its kinematic parameters
⎢ ⎥[ ]
⎢ ẋk+1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ T0 ⎥
0 ⎥ axk ⎢ ⎥
⎢ wxk˙ ⎥ Pusv are defined as follows.
⎢ ⎥=⎢ 1 0 ⎥⎢ ẋk ⎥ + ⎢
⎢ / ⎥ +⎢ ⎥.
⎣ yk+1 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 1 T0 ⎦⎣ yk ⎦ ⎢ 0 T0 2 ⎥
2 a ⎣ wyk ⎦ Pusv = [xs , ys , zs , us , vs , ws , φs , θs , ψ s , ps , qs , rs ]T
⎣ ⎥ yk
ẏk+1 0 0 0 1 ẏk ⎦ wyk˙ Among them, the spatial coordinate vector of the USV is [xs , ys , zs ]T ,
0 T0
the velocity vector of the USV is V s = [us , vs , ws ]T , the Euler angles of the
(8) USV are [φs , θs , ψ s ]T , and the angular velocity of the USV in the body
Simultaneously, the measurement equation of the filter can be coordinate system is ωa = [ps , qs , rs ]T .
established. For the purpose of convenience in deriving the equations, we intro­
duce two assumptions:
Zk+1 = HXk+1 + Vk + Dk (9)
Where Zk+1 is the UWB-measured coordinate position and the GPS- (1) UWB electromagnetic waves propagate at a speed equal to that of
measured velocity in the CCS of the UAV, H is the measurement ma­ light. Furthermore, the time consumed during propagation within
trix. Vk is the measurement error noise of the sensor that follows a the relative distance between the UAV and USV, denoted as τi , is
standard normal distribution, Vk ∼ N(0, R). Dk is the bias term resulting minimal. The offset of the USV’s six-degree-of-freedom oscillatory
from UWB positioning error which increases with distance. Both Vk and motion during τi is almost zero. Hence, we assume that the four UWB
Dk are adaptively adjusted in the X direction of the UWB coordinate tag distance values ρi acquired by the UAV on the USV are accurate.
system according to formulas (4) and (5), as shown in formulas (10) and (2) We study the error within a short time interval Δt. During this
(11). interval, we assume that the positional coordinates of the UAV
⎡ ⎤ remain constant in the geodetic coordinate system.
R2x (x) 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ Let the velocity vector of the USV relative to the UAV be denoted by
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0.01 0 0 ⎥
R=⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥ (10) V r = [vrx , vry , vrz ]T ,and the velocity vector of the UAV is V a =
⎢ 0 0 0.04 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ [vax , vay , vaz ]T .
0 0 0 0.01
V r = (V s − V a ) (17)
⎡
Dx (x)
⎤ In the {Ousv Xusv Yusv Zusv } coordinate system of the USV, let the three-
⎢ ⎥ dimensional coordinate vector of the UAV be denoted by pSa =
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎥ [xsa , ysa , zsa ]T . The coordinate vector of the UAV under {OE XE YE ZE }
Dk = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ (11) are pEa = [xa , ya , za ]T .Its transformation relationship with pEa is given by
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦ formula (18).
0 pEa = Eusv RpSa + V r Δt (18)
(E )T
̂ − = AX
X ̂ k + BUk (12) pSa = (19)
k+1 usv R (pEa − V r Δt)

P−k+1 = APk AT + Q (13)

E
usv Ris the rotation matrix that transforms any vector from the USV
coordinate system to the Earth coordinate system. As illustrated in
[
Kk+1 = P−k+1 H T HP−k+1 H T + R
]− 1
(14) Fig. 4, since the UWB positioning coordinate system {Ow Xw Yw Zw } and
the USV coordinate system {Ousv Xusv Yusv Zusv } are fixed, and the direction

7
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

Fig. 6. Filtering of UAV Return Path Trajectory using Adaptive Kalman Filter that Fuses UWB Localization Data and GPS Velocity Information.

is opposite. Consequently, differences α, β and γ exist between the two landing and prevent the UAV from approaching the horizontal plane,
coordinate systems along the USV’s fore-aft, port-starboard, and vertical then formula (21) sway disturbance amount should specifically be
directions, respectively. Given the four coordinate values of psi and the added to (12) to alleviate UWB positioning bias induced by USV body
known differences, one can calculate the rotation and translation sway induced by wind and waves. The above filter and correction pro­
matrices between the two coordinate systems. The UAV coordinates in cess provide relatively accurate relative position information for the
the UWB coordinate system are obtained by substituting pSa and pW in docking controller of the UAV and USV.
formula (20).
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
− 1 0 0 − α
2.3. USV Hull Stabilization and Flight Docking Control Method
pW = 0 1 0 pSa + β ⎦
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ (20)
0 0 1 0
In future complex and dynamic application scenarios, UAVs and
Due to the complexity of the expanded equation, it was not intuitive USVs will collaborate to perform a variety of tasks. For instance, in the
for analysis. Therefore, simplified conditions were considered for the event of unfamiliar waters, the USV may anchor or passively float, while
analysis of USV motion. These conditions assume that the USV was in a the UAV takes off to assist in USV navigation. Alternatively, while the
fixed-speed and fixed-direction state with a heading angle ψ s = 0, where USV is in motion, the UAV may need to dynamically dock with it.
there was only a deviation in the northward velocity between the UAV Therefore, this study proposes three typical scenarios for UAV autono­
and the USV(vry = vrz = 0). Thus, formula (20) simplifies to formula mous landing: USV docking at a port, USV passive floating at sea, and
(21). USV directed sailing at a constant speed.
⎡ Δx ⎤ The docking and passive floating of an USV share similarities in
terms of operational conditions. The USV lacks forward velocity and
⎢ Δt ⎥ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ zqs − vrx undergoes oscillatory motions within a small range due to wind and
⎢ Δy ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣
⎢ Δt ⎥ = zps ⎦ (21) waves. When the magnitude of these oscillations is small, the re­
⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦ xqs − yps + θs vrx quirements for autonomous landing of a UAV are relatively low, similar
Δz to the UAV’s autonomous return to land. However, under significant
Δt wind and wave disturbances that cause large oscillations in the USV, the
According to formula (20), UAV error in the UWB coordinate system author drew inspiration from surfing and proposed a USV roll and pitch
is closely related to USV sway response. Specifically, when the UAV and stability control strategy that incorporates environmental wind and
USV move at a uniform speed (vrx = 0), the UWB positioning error de­ wave data.This method aims to reduce the oscillations of the USV’s
pends on the position of the UAV in Earth coordinates and the USV’s flight deck caused by wind and waves by having the USV sail at a con­
sway angular velocity. In this scenario, the horizontal positioning error stant speed and direction, thereby assisting the UAV’s autonomous
of the UWB at the UAV point equals the line velocity value of the USV’s landing.
sway angular velocity, with the UAV height as the radius. The USV was input into STARCCM+ for hydrodynamic simulation,
In conclusion, when the UAV lands on the USV, it should be kept as and two sailing conditions, downwave and upwave respectively, were
close to the horizontal plane as possible to ensure UWB horizontal set up, as illustrated in Fig. 7. Under ideal circumstances, the USV’s
positioning accuracy. If obstacles in the surrounding area interfere with heading speed matches the wave speed, allowing it to travel along with
the wave, akin to surfing. During this process, the roll angle of the USV

8
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

Fig. 7. Changes in pitch of USV sailing with and against waves in STARCCM+

remains at 0, and the pitch angle is maintained at approximately -3◦ .
However, when upwave sailing, the USV’s pitch response becomes
notably severe, rendering it unsuitable for UAV docking.
The underlying principle is as follows: Based on the ship’s wave
resistance, the Froude number and roll damping of a ship increase
proportionally in a linear manner. Therefore, under equivalent condi­
tions, a ship with forward velocity experiences smaller roll angles
compared to a ship without forward velocity. Thus, when the UAV is
landing on the USV under significant wind and wave influences, the
latter should sail at a certain speed to minimize its own roll angle.The
heave and pitch motions of the USV are caused by the periodic en­
counters between the ship and the waves. In real oceanic scenarios, the
majority of wave periods are longer than the inherent periods of the
USV’s heave and pitch motions. When the USV is sailing with the waves,
the encounter period with the waves increases, which can decrease the
amplitude of the USV’s heave and pitch motions. Therefore, the USV can

Fig. 8. Dynamic Docking Controller System Architecture for UAV and USV.

9
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

measure the current wind direction using onboard meteorological sen­ to arrive at the center of the USV deck pw0 can be estimated based on
sors while estimating the wave direction. By sailing with the wind and eu and V u .
waves while controlling the speed, the USV can reduce the encounter {⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒}
⃒ ex ⃒ ⃒ ey ⃒
frequency with the waves. Similar to a surfboard stabilizing and moving tarrive∞ = max ⃒⃒ ⃒⃒, ⃒⃒ ⃒⃒ (27)
vux vuy
forward at the same speed and direction as the waves, this approach
aims to minimize the oscillatory effects of wind and waves on the USV’s As shown in formula (28), to ensure a safe and smooth landing tra­
flight deck. jectory during docking, the vertical motion controller sets different ex­
This paper briefly describes the docking controller design. As shown pected flight heights for the UAV based on eu . The expected vertical
in Fig. 8, the autonomous docking control problem of UAV landing on motion speed of the UAV is determined by the ‖ tarrive ‖∞ and expected
USV is decomposed into a horizontal approach controller and a vertical flight height. Through this method, the UAV can land at the appropriate
landing controller. height vertically while approaching the center of the USV deck hori­
It is stipulated that UD is the expected control vector of the UAV in zontally. When the USV suddenly accelerates and decelerates, causing
the body coordinate system, which is composed of the UAV expected the UAV to deviate from the center point of the deck, the UAV can
yaw torque τuav , the expected head speed vhead , the expected lateral quickly change its flight altitude to avoid the risk of collision or falling
speed vside and the expected vertical speed vDz , that is, UD = into the water. The focus of future research is tforecast in formula (28).
[ τuav vhead vside vDz ]T , the heading angle of UAV is ψ a , the heading Through the study of the very short-term forecast of the USV, its future
angle deviation of UAV and USV ψ d = ψ a − ψ s , assume that the expected sway stabilization time tforecast is obtained, so that the UAV can land on
landing point of the USV deck is pw0 = [xw0 , yw0 , 0]T in the UWB coor­ the USV deck more smoothly. Since this article has not successfully
dinate system. solved the problem, this value is temporarily set to 1.
The relative position deviation eu is the formula (22). ⎧
⎪
⎪ 1
[ ] [ ] ⎪
⎪ (0.11 − zw ), eu 2 ∈ [0, 0.3]
[ ]T 1 0 0 x − xw0 ⎪
⎪ t
(22)
forecast
eu = ex , ey = (pw − pw0 ) = ⎪
⎪
0 1 0 y − yw0 ⎨ 1
vDz = (0.45 − zw ), eu 2 ∈ (0.3, 0.85) (28)
⎪ tarrive∞
The horizontal speed V u = [vux , vuy ]T of the UAV in the UWB coordi­ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
nate system (the negative number of the difference of the heading ve­ ⎪
⎪
⎩
1
(2 − zw ), eu 2 ∈ [0.85, +∞)
locity of the X axis of UWB) is as follows tarrive∞

[ ]T
[ ]T [ ] To verify the practical application of the aforementioned filter and
dex dey 1 0 0 USV
V u = vux , vuy = , = RV r (23) docking controller, autonomous landing tests for UAV were designed
dt dt 0 1 0 E
under three USV working conditions: docked at a pier, drifting without
E R is the rotation matrix that transforms any vector from the Earth propulsion at sea, and navigating with fixed orientation and speed at
USV

coordinate system to the USV coordinate system.The horizontal sea, as shown in Fig. 9. The dynamic docking trajectories of both vehi­
approach controller of the UAV is depicted by formula (24). The UAV cles were obtained while the USV maintained a fixed speed and direction
heading controller aligns the coordinate systems of the two carriers in of 3 knots. Fig. 10 provides a visualization of these trajectories.
parallel, thereby facilitating precise control over the UAV’s horizontal
speed.The UAV’s horizontal speed controller comprises two compo­ 3. Task Allocation for Maritime Inspection Missions
nents. The first component is a co-speed controller, which facilitates
coordinated navigation for the UAV and USV, thus avoiding the drastic Based on analysis of the above-mentioned experimental results of
changes in control parameters encountered when relying solely on the UAV docking with USV, it was found that UAV can accurately takeoff
position deviation controller. The second component is the position and land on static and dynamic USV, meeting the basic requirements for
deviation controller, responsible for refining the UAV’s speed to mini­ cooperative tasks. Thus, a sea-air heterogeneous unmanned system was
mize relative position deviations and ultimately reach the expected selected to complete the maritime inspection mission. When inspecting
landing point. buoyant objects such as oil pollution, garbage, and aircraft wreckage on
⎡
τuav
⎤ ⎡
0 0 0
⎤ the sea, their movements are affected by wind and waves. It is important
⎣ vhead ⎦ = ⎣ 1 0 0 ⎦USV RV s to consider this when conducting inspections as full-coverage in­
spections without proper randomness may miss the target objects and
E
vside 0 1 0
⎡ ∫t ⎤ results in large deviations in the inspection outcomes.
Kpτ ψ d + Kiτ ψ d (σ)dσ + Kdτ d
dψ To address the above-mentioned issues, this paper proposes a fast
⎢ ⎥
⎢ dt ⎥ random inspection method suitable for heterogeneous sea-air unmanned
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ systems. Specifically, a certain number of waypoints, randomly
∫ t
⎢
⎢ K (x − x ) + K dx ⎥ distributed within a 2km square sea area according to a normal distri­
+ ⎢ px (x(σ ) − xw0 )dσ + Kdx ⎥ (24)
⎢
w0 ix ⎥
dt ⎥ bution, are used to generate inspection paths using clustering and
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0
⎥ optimization methods. These paths are then assigned to four UAVs for
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣
∫t ⎥
dy ⎦ quick inspection while a USV serves as a center point for landing,
Kpy (y − yw0 ) + Kiy (y(σ) − yw0 )dσ + Kdy
dt charging, and auxiliary positioning. The problem of assigning waypoints
0 to multiple UAVs to achieve optimal distance is known as the vehicle
The horizontal approach controller uses a fuzzy PID control algo­ routing problem (VRP), which involves creating efficient driving routes
rithm with adaptive tuning of kp, ki, and kd parameters based on for multiple vehicles to reach a series of unloading points while meeting
established fuzzy rules and inputs:eu ,V u , wind direction and speed to certain constraints such as vehicle capacity, mileage, and time limits.
achieve a swift approach of the UAV to the flight deck of the USV. Therefore, the mathematical description of the maritime inspection
task is:
[ Kpx Kix Kdx ] = fuzzy x(ex , vux , wind direction, wind speed) (25) The inspection task involves K UAVs located at the central point
( ) (USV), with each UAV assigned a maximum of Q inspection waypoints
[ Kpy Kiy Kdy ] = fuzzy y ey , vuy , wind direction, wind speed (26) out of n total waypoints. Each UAV starts from the central point for the
home-work inspection and returns to the central point upon completion.
As shown in formula (27), The estimated time ‖ tarrive ‖∞ for the UAV
The number of waypoints assigned for each UAV is qk , where k = 1,2,3,

10
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

Fig. 9. Experimental Process of UAV Autonomous Docking in Three Operational Conditions of USV: Anchored Docking, Motionless Drifting at Sea, and Directed and
Speed-controlled Navigation at Sea.

⎧
⎪
⎪ ∑ n
⎪
⎪ yik ≤ Q k = 1, 2, …, K
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑K
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ yik = 1 i = 1, 2, …, n
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑
⎪ n
xijk = yjk j = 1, 2, …, n
(30)
⎪
⎪ i=0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑ n
⎪
⎪ xijk = yik i = 1, 2, …, n
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ j=0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ xijk = 0 or 1 i, j = 1, 2, …, n
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ y = 0 or 1 i = 1, 2, …, n
ik

There are six conditions required for optimization problem (30). The
first condition requires that the total number of waypoints in each in­
Fig. 10. Spatial Trajectory of UAV Autonomous Dynamic Landing during spection path does not exceed the maximum number of inspection
USV’s Constant Speed and Directional Navigation at 3kn. waypoints per UAV. The second condition requires that each waypoint i
has only one UAV inspection assignment. Conditions three and four
…, K, and qk < Q. Note that the number of the center point is 0, and the constrain the xij path of the k-th inspection UAV between waypoints i
numbers of each waypoint are i, i = 0, 1, 2, …, n and j,j = 0,1,2,…,n. The and j. Conditions five and six constrain the possible values of binary
variable cij represents the distance between waypoint i and j. Z denotes variables.
the total distance traveled by all UAVs during inspection. Binary vari­ VRP can be solved through exact or heuristic algorithms. Due to the
ables xijk and yik indicate whether a route exists for the kth UAV to travel NP-hard property of the VRP, calculating exact solutions becomes
from waypoint i to j and whether waypoint i is inspected by the kth UAV, exponentially more difficult as problem size increases. Alternative ap­
respectively. The objective function to be optimized is as formula (29) proaches such as genetic algorithms, neural networks, and simulated
annealing algorithms have shown promise in solving the VRP. This
∑ paper proposes a clustering and genetic algorithm hybrid solution
n ∑
n ∑
K
min Z = cij xijk (29)
i=0 j=0 k=1 method, building upon previous work to address challenges related to
scaling and increasing complexity.
Subject to: Solving optimization problem of formula (29) directly through a
genetic algorithm would likely result in an uneven workload distribu­
tion among UAVs due to discrepancies in assigned waypoints. To

11
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

achieve a more equitable distribution of tasks, the initial set of way­ (continued )
points is evenly divided into four separate groups, effectively trans­ 4: Sort the slope values from small to large, and divide them into four waypoint
forming the VRP problem into four separate TSP problems. This
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
sets T′1 … T′i/4 , T′i/4+1 … T′i/2 , T′i/2+1 … T′3i/4 , T′3i/4+1 … T′i .
approach allows for the creation of a more balanced workload distri­ 5: Solve the TSP for each waypoint using a genetic algorithm:
[ ]
bution among UAVs. 6: When T′1 … T′i/4 , by setting the number of population u and the number of
Assuming 40 inspection waypoints are generated within a 2km by i n
point sets v, where v = − 1 = . Then calculate the upper triangular distance
4 4
2km range, the clustering process for these waypoints is shown in matrix of v ∗ v as follows:
Fig. 11. The process involves obtaining the coordinate information for ⎡
0 d1,2 ⋯ d1,v
⎤

each waypoint (a), calculating the center point of the inspection area ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
(b), determining the slope of the connecting line between the center
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
D =⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⎥, d1,v = ‖ T′ − T′ ‖2
v 1
point and the remaining waypoints (c), and sorting the 40 waypoints in ⎢
⎢
⎢ d
⎥
⎥
v− 1,v ⎥
descending order of slope. Next, the sorted waypoints are divided ⎣ ⎦
0 0
equally into four sets (d). A genetic algorithm can then be applied to
⋯
7: Set an algorithm iteration number, and execute steps 8, 9, and 10 in a loop
solve the individual TSP for each set of waypoints (shown in Fig. 12) and within the algorithm iteration number.
produce a feasible VRP solution. Algorithm 1 illustrates the process of 8: Generate u random permutations from 1 to v, and calculate the sum Lj of
planning and assigning the clustered waypoints into four complete permutation paths according to the order of random permutations, (j = 1⋯u).
paths. 9: Among the u path sums Lj , according to the fitness criterion of the smallest path
sum, determine the smallest Lmin among the u path sums.
Algorithm 1 Waypoint task assignment algorithm
10: The best individual in the current generation population is bred to produce an
optimized solution for the TSP point set. The breeding process employs genetic
1: In the range of 2km by 2km, randomly generate a set of n waypoints algorithm techniques such as selection, crossover, mutation, and inheritance.
[ T′1 … T′n ] that conform to the normal distribution. Its purpose is to achieve an optimized TSP solution for the set of points.
2: Solve the center point T0 (x0 , y0 ) of all waypoints Ti (xi , yi ), (i = 1…n) in the 11: The remaining three groups completed the initial optimization task using the
1 n
⎡ ∑ ⎤
aforementioned process, resulting in the task path solution shown in Fig. 12.
[ ] ⎢n xi ⎥
x0 ⎢ i=1 ⎥
waypoint set, where =⎢ ⎥.
y0 ⎢ ∑
⎣1 n
⎥
⎦
n i=1
yi Fig.s 11 and 12 display the clustering and path planning process
3: Connect the center point T0 and the waypoint Ti in the set, and calculate the only. Due to the scarce number of waypoints, UAV patrol according to
(
yi − y0
)
the waypoints results in insufficient sea area scanning information.
slope value θi of the connection line, where θi = arctan .
xi − x0 Therefore, inspection area coverage should be maximized while mini­
(continued on next column) mizing the inspection path. The genetic algorithm solution is affected by

Fig. 11. Process of Initial Inspection Point Aggregation Clustering.

12
T. Ennong et al.
Fig. 12. Process of Genetic Algorithm for Solving the TSP of Various Point Sets.
the number of elements in the input waypoint set, the initial population
size of the algorithm, and the number of iterations. Generally, when the
number of elements in the input waypoint set is constant and the initial
population size of the algorithm is rich, increasing the number of iter­
ations makes it easier for the algorithm to find an optimal solution.
However, there is a trade-off between the number of iterations and
calculation time. The inspection task does not aim to find the shortest
path, as this would also reduce the inspection range. In order to explore
the optimal number of waypoints to obtain higher inspection efficiency,
the following simulation experiments are carried out.
Verification of the task allocation algorithm necessitates the
involvement of one USV and four UAVs, which entails significant un­
certainties in water surface experiments. Therefore, we conducted high-
fidelity simulation experiments to verify the required algorithm. We
utilized MATLAB Simulink to establish the dynamics and kinematics
simulation framework of the USV and UAV. The maritime inspection
scene that requires detection is depicted in Fig. 13 under Unreal Engine
4 (UE4). We created environmental scenes such as sea surfaces, land,
Fig. 13. Maritime inspection scene constructed in UE4.
13
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
and mountains, added blueprint classes for USV and UAV, and inte­
grated functional camera components into the carriers for image
acquisition during inspection tasks. Finally, the MathWorks plugin was
employed under UE4 to interface with Simulink for the USV and UAV
task simulation in the UE4 scene.
The cruising speed of the UAV is set to 10m/s, and the flight height of
each UAV is adjusted to accommodate the 150m strip width captured by
the airborne HD camera. The UAV takes off from the USV and patrols the
maritime inspection path as planned. After completing the inspection, it
returns to the USV at the center point to recharge before starting on the
next area. The number of waypoints is determined for the task, and the
genetic algorithm population and iteration numbers are set to generate
optimal inspection paths and maximize coverage for all four UAVs.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the results. The Fig. 14 displays the re­
sults of Algorithm 1 for the set of waypoints in Table 2.
Based on the findings in Table 2, when there are fewer than 120
generated waypoints within an area, the UAV can cover 62.02 % of the
area designated for inspection within a swift 494 seconds. This
T. Ennong et al. Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856

Table 2
Inspection coverage rate of the sea surface for a set of waypoints that follow a normal distribution, obtained using Algorithm 1 for different quantities.
Number of waypoints n population size u, number of Inspection total distance Total inspection time Full coverage distance Inspection map
iterations (m) (s) (m) coverage

120 40,7000 19779.6 494 31168 62.02 %

160 40,7000 23358.7 584 71.97 %
200 50,7000 24464.1 612 74.86 %
240 60,7000 26430.1 661 79.46 %
280 70,7000 30275.8 757 85.35 %
320 80,7000 31031.3 776 87.29 %

Fig. 14. Algorithm 1 for UAV Path Planning and Inspection Coverage Results for Different Number of Waypoints.

demonstrates the potential for a rapid enveloping inspection of a sea
area by a UAV in a short period of time. Additionally, when many
waypoints are present and the UAV follows the planned path, the
coverage and operation time of the inspection are similar to that of an
inspection route that covers the entire area.
This algorithm has the advantages of randomness, and is suitable for
the following application scenarios:
1. Its rapid operation makes it well-suited for unrefined and large-scale
offshore mapping and surveying operations, such as emergency
response tasks following oil spills in offshore areas. With shorter
search paths and faster operating efficiency, it can quickly assess the
affected area and monitor the situation of an oil spill.
2. When performing dynamic search tasks on the ocean surface, the
target can move or be affected by oceanic winds and waves, resulting
in a dynamic and random position. Utilizing full-coverage search in
the form of a weeder will result in a rigidly fixed direction and route,
making it easy to miss the dynamic target. This algorithm’s waypoint
set ensures the UAV completes the search coverage process quickly in
the designated sea area and follows a distribution that guarantees
variability. The navigation path planned according to the waypoint
set is adaptable and highly exploratory.
3. The marine radar or phased-array radar carried by the USV can
provide positions of specific targets to add to the UAV’s waypoint set.
The algorithm then allocates and plans tasks uniformly to ensure that
the UAV swarm conducts closed-loop inspections of multi-target
points of interest.
Conclusion
This paper presents a heterogeneous unmanned system designed to
meet the requirements of offshore operations. The system comprises a
long-endurance catamaran USV equipped with an onboard UAV landing
deck and a UAV capable of autonomous takeoff and landing on the USV
without relying on vision. Then carried out the following innovative
work:
1. In response to the challenge of maintaining stable and accurate
relative positioning information for USVs and UAVs in unpredictable
maritime weather conditions, this article introduces the UWB posi­
tioning system for the inaugural application in measuring the rela­
tive position of UAV landing on USVs. It also performs a quantitative
analysis of the UWB positioning array’s error, taking into account the
impact of short deck baseline length and wave swaying, and proposes
an adaptive filter solution.
2. A novel "surfing" roll and pitch stability control method for USV is
proposed. This adjustment effectively minimizes the rolling and
pitching response of the USV, consequently facilitating the smooth
landing of the UAV. Simultaneously, the UAV evaluates its relative
speed, position, and heading deviation in relation to the USV, and

14
T. Ennong et al.
dynamically adjusts the expected docking control inputs and motion
parameters using a fuzzy working condition table. Multiple autono­
mous landing experiments at sea have demonstrated the UAV’s high
landing accuracy and stability during the docking phase.
3. After addressing the docking control for the USV-UAV system, we
propose a task allocation method for efficient sea surface inspection
using a heterogeneous unmanned system. Simulation tests of a USV
equipped with four UAVs conducting sea surface inspection tasks are
conducted in UE4 and Simulink. Within a 2km × 2km sea area, the
surrounding inspection operation covers 74 % of the sea area and can
be completed within 10 minutes. This method holds reference value
for large-scale maritime search missions conducted by heteroge­
neous unmanned systems operating in sea and air environments.
Our research also has some limitations. Our UAV is designed to
support the research and functional demonstration of the sea-air het­
erogeneous unmanned collaborative system in this paper. The experi­
ment was also temporarily conducted in 10km offshore areas. If
autonomous operations are carried out in the distant sea area in the
future, industrial-grade UAV with more propulsion power systems
should be used to resist the interference of marine climate. We did not
include Very Short-Term Forecast (VSTF) or Quiet Period Prediction
(QPP) of the optimal landing time point. In the future, we plan to
investigate the sway response forecast of the designed USV in real-world
wind and wave conditions. We will then use predicted USV stable pe­
riods to optimize the expected trajectory of the docking control,
ensuring safer and more stable take-off and landing docking operations
in severe sea conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tian Ennong: Project administration, Software, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Li Ye: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Ma Teng: Super­
vision, Writing – review & editing. Liao Yulei: Investigation, Resources,
Writing – review & editing. Li Yueming: Methodology, Resources,
Software. Cao Jian: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (52071104), the National Key R & D Program of
China, Grant No: 2021YFC 2801300, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 52071097), Hainan Provincial Natural
Science Foundation of China(Grant No. 522MS162) and Research Fund
from Science and Technology on Underwater Vehicle Technology Lab­
oratory(Grant No. 2021JCJQ-SYSJJ-LB06910)
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.apor.2023.103856.
15
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
References
Rangel, R.K., Freitas, J.L., Rodrigues, V.A., 2019, March. Development of a multipurpose
hydro environmental tool using swarms, UAV and USV. In: Proceedings of the 2019
IEEE Aerospace Conference. Ieee, pp. 1–15.
Xiao, X., Dufek, J., Woodbury, T., Murphy, R., 2017, September. UAV assisted USV visual
navigation for marine mass casualty incident response. In: Proceedings of the 2017
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE,
pp. 6105–6110.
Ramírez, F.F., Benitez, D.S., Portas, E.B., Orozco, J.A.L., 2011, June. Coordinated sea
rescue system based on unmanned air vehicles and surface vessels. OCEANS 2011
IEEE-Spain. IEEE, pp. 1–10.
Zhang, J., Xiong, J., Zhang, G., Gu, F., He, Y., 2016, April. Flooding disaster oriented USV
& UAV system development & demonstration. OCEANS 2016-Shanghai. IEEE,
pp. 1–4.
Wang, Y., Liu, W., Liu, J., Sun, C., 2023. Cooperative USV–UAV marine search and rescue
with visual navigation and reinforcement learning-based control. ISA Trans.
Dufek, J., Murphy, R., 2016, October. Visual pose estimation of USV from UAV to assist
drowning victims recovery. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International
Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR). IEEE, pp. 147–153.
Collins, G., Clausse, A., Twining, D., 2017, June. Enabling technologies for autonomous
offshore inspections by heterogeneous unmanned teams. OCEANS 2017-Aberdeen.
IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Wu, Y., Low, K.H., Lv, C., 2020. Cooperative path planning for heterogeneous unmanned
vehicles in a search-and-track mission aiming at an underwater target. IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol. 69 (6), 6782–6787.
Wu, Y., 2019. Coordinated path planning for an unmanned aerial-aquatic vehicle
(UAAV) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) in an underwater target
strike mission. Ocean Eng. 182, 162–173.
Pastore, T., Galdorisi, G., Jones, A., 2017, September. Command and Control (C2) to
enable multi-domain teaming of unmanned vehicles (UxVs). Oceans 2017-
Anchorage. IEEE, pp. 1–7.
Huang, T., Chen, Z., Gao, W., Xue, Z., Liu, Y., 2023. A USV-UAV cooperative trajectory
planning algorithm with hull dynamic constraints. Sensors 23 (4), 1845.
Garzón, M., Valente, J., Zapata, D., Barrientos, A., 2013. An aerial–ground robotic system
for navigation and obstacle mapping in large outdoor areas. Sensors 13 (1),
1247–1267.
Qin, H., Meng, Z., Meng, W., Chen, X., Sun, H., Lin, F., Ang, M.H., 2019. Autonomous
exploration and mapping system using heterogeneous UAVs and UGVs in GPS-
denied environments. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 68 (2), 1339–1350.
Wang, Y., Sun, J., Liu, Y., 2022, November. Autonomous landing guidance and control
for cooperative UAV-USV systems. In: Proceedings of the 2022 37th Youth Academic
Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC). IEEE,
pp. 1196–1201.
Xu, Z.C., Hu, B.B., Liu, B., Wang, X.D., Zhang, H.T., 2020, July. Vision-based autonomous
landing of unmanned aerial vehicle on a motional unmanned surface vessel. In:
Proceedings of the 2020 39th Chinese Control Conference (CCC). IEEE,
pp. 6845–6850.
Fan, Y., Ma, J., Wang, G., Li, T., 2016, February. Design of a heterogeneous marsupial
robotic system composed of an USV and an UAV. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Eighth
International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI). IEEE,
pp. 395–399.
Polvara, R., Sharma, S., Wan, J., Manning, A., Sutton, R., 2018. Vision-based
autonomous landing of a quadrotor on the perturbed deck of an unmanned surface
vehicle. Drones 2 (2), 15.
Santos, N.P., Lobo, V., Bernardino, A., 2019, October. AUTOLAND project: Fixed-wing
UAV landing on a fast patrol boat using computer vision. OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE
SEATTLE. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
... & Zhang, H., He, Y., Li, D., Gu, F., Li, Q., Zhang, M., Hu, Y., 2020. Marine UAV–USV
marsupial platform: System and recovery technic verification. Appl. Sci. 10 (5),
1583.
Shao, G., Ma, Y., Malekian, R., Yan, X., Li, Z., 2019. A novel cooperative platform design
for coupled USV–UAV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 15 (9), 4913–4922.
Weaver, J.N., Frank, D.Z., Schwartz, E.M., Arroyo, A.A., 2013, November. UAV
performing autonomous landing on USV utilizing the robot operating system. In:
Proceedings of the ASME District F-Early Career Technical Conference. Citeseer.
Li, W., Ge, Y., Guan, Z., Ye, G., 2022. Synchronized motion-based UAV–USV cooperative
autonomous landing. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (9), 1214.
Abujoub, S., Mcphee, J., Westin, C., Irani, R.A., 2018, October. Unmanned aerial vehicle
landing on maritime vessels using signal prediction of the ship motion. OCEANS
2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston. IEEE, pp. 1–9.
Riola, J.M., Diaz, J.J., Giron-Sierra, J.M., 2011, June. The prediction of calm
opportunities for landing on a ship: aspects of the problem. OCEANS 2011 IEEE-
Spain. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Sahinoglu, Z., Gezici, S., Guvenc, I., 2008. Ultra-wideband positioning systems.
Cambridge, New York.
Soganci, H., Gezici, S., Poor, H.V., 2011. Accurate positioning in ultra-wideband systems,
18. IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 19–27.
Gigl, T., Janssen, G.J., Dizdarevic, V., Witrisal, K., Irahhauten, Z., 2007, March. Analysis
of a UWB indoor positioning system based on received signal strength. 2007 4th
Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communication. IEEE, pp. 97–101.
T. Ennong et al.
Xu, J., Ma, M., Law, C.L., 2015. Cooperative angle-of-arrival position localization.
Measurement 59, 302–313.
Shen, G., Zetik, R., Yan, H., Hirsch, O., Thomä, R.S., 2010, September. Time of arrival
estimation for range-based localization in UWB sensor networks. In: Proceedings of
the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Ultra-Wideband, 2. IEEE, pp. 1–4.
16
Applied Ocean Research 143 (2024) 103856
Kaushik, M., Trinkle, M., Hashemi-Sakhtsari, A., Pattison, T., 2011, September. Three
dimensional microphone and source position estimation using TDOA and TOF
measurements. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Signal
Processing. IEEE, pp. 1–6. Communications and Computing (ICSPCC).